Vol. 440 No. 3
1 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment his views on whether the EU questioning of the emphasis on human resources in the National Development Plan, 1994-1999 is a useful input to the debate on the use of Structural Funds.
24 Mrs. T. Ahearn asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment his views on whether the EU questioning of the emphasis on human resources in the National Development Plan, 1994/1999 is a useful input to the debate on the use of Structural Funds.
26 Mr. Barry asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, in view of the public challenge by the EC Commission of the value of some of the Government plans for spending on training and work schemes, if the Government will publish details of the evaluation of the worth of its proposals so that there can be an informed public debate on these important decisions.
71 Mr. Dukes asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment his views on whether the EU questioning of the emphasis on human resources in the National Development Plan 1994-1999 is a useful input to the debate on the use of Structural Funds.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1, 24, 26 and 71 together.
The human resources element of the National Development Plan reflects the outcome of preparatory discussions with the European Commission. It focuses on four main areas: initial education and training, continuing training for the unemployed and those in employment, social exclusion aid, supporting measures to ensure the effectiveness and quality of the investments proposed.
Subsequent to the submission of the plan, the European Commission expressed satisfaction with the proposals as they relate to education, training and employment measures. Some adaptations have been suggested and these are currently the subject of negotiations with the European Commission.
In addition, the human resources measures proposed have been assessed by the Economic and Social Research Institute, which was retained by the European Commission to undertake that task. The outcome of that appraisal has also found the expenditure emphasis to be worthy of support having regard to the labour market and demographic considerations which exist.
An evaluation unit is located in my Department to assess the impact of expenditures on human resources measures supported through the European Social Fund and to make recommendations for change if appropriate. A significant number of measures have already been evaluated in partnership with the European Commission and recommendations for improvements are being progressively implemented.
I am fully committed to ensuring that the significant investment from the Exchequer and the European Social Fund to be allocated to human resources development in the period to 1994 is effective and that objectives set are realised. All human resources measures will be rigorously evaluated and monitored in consultation with the European Commission and any necessary changes introduced. The impression given in some reports that waste or inefficiency will be acceptable in the area of human resources expenditure is fundamentally wrong. I assure the House that failure to achieve present objectives or to adapt programmes where necessary will result in the withdrawal of funding and its allocation elsewhere.
Deputy Bruton asked specifically if the EU questioning of the emphasis on human resources was a useful input to the debate. Any interchange in a debate is useful.
It is regrettable that Deputy Quinn is not here to take this question which deals specifically with how he has conducted his business. It is particularly surprising, after his comments last week, that he is not present. Will the Minister of State agree that the petulant response of the Minister to legitimate questions about the value for money of human resources was damaging to Irish interests in negotiating Structural Funds? Will she agree that the major published work on the evaluation of human resource investment, namely, the report by Mr. Frank Roche and Mr. Paul Tansey as part of the Culliton report, was far from encouraging about the value for money of much of our investment? Will the Minister of State agree that it is hard for us to accept that an unpublished work to which the Government accords high priority deals adequately with the issue?
The reason for the Minister's absence is that he is at an important European meeting on Government business. As to interchanges between the Minister and the European Union official, often much is gained in a robust exchange where one party knows the strength of the other. At that level there are clearly areas where creative tensions can be expressed.
Since the input of Tansey and Roche into the Culliton report, there has been the ESRI evaluation of the work done which has been accepted in Brussels. Officials were able to assure us that that chapter on human resources is broadly acceptable to the European Commission and any other reports to the contrary are incorrect.
I appreciate the Minister's difficulty in responding to questions which are the responsibility of her colleague. However, I do not believe that a robust exchange involving name-calling of officials sheds any light on matters. Does the Minister agree that it is highly unsatisfactory that the claimed ESRI work is unpublished? Would she also agree that the fact that the public record shows, for example, that of those on social employment schemes only 16 per cent got work and 85 per cent effectively remained unemployed, and similar poor returns on other schemes, does not give the public much confidence that 100 per cent for money is being obtained from human resource and FÁS schemes?
If by 100 per cent value for money the Deputy means that everybody on a training programme is placed in a job, admirable as that objective would be, it can never be realised. We have a new community employment scheme operating this month, and there is need for evaluation and monitoring and for job placement as far as possible.
